Windows 7 blocking 3rd-party codecs?

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

New rumblings about Windows 7 codec support

Following up on my previous report on integrated Windows 7 codec support, I saw today from Volker Zota at heise that some new developments in the Windows 7 betas have come to light. According to the investigative work of an ffdshow developer, as reported to Dan ?BetaBoy? Marlin of CoreCodec, the latest beta of Windows 7 blocks the usage of third party video decoders from Windows Media Player and MCE.

As previously reported, Windows 7 differs from earlier versions of Windows in that it will ship with a number of popular video codecs already integrated, including most notably h.264. There are some very notable caveats to the information as it stands right now: this is after all just a beta and might not be in the final released version of Windows 7, there will likely be work arounds, especially for other player software applications (like VLC and Media Player Classic), and because Windows 7 will come with h.264 already installed, many users will never need third-party decoders anyway.

Nonetheless, this move by Microsoft is still somewhat disturbing for it seems to be a big step backwards from what appeared to be Redmond?s increasing openness to third party solutions in the video world. There remains a very active competitive landscape among codec developers and media software creators, outside of the (somewhat) closed garden that Microsoft would prefer Windows users to remain within, and such a move would definitely tilt things in the Microsft direction. This isn?t IE versus Netscape, but it does reflect that kind of outdated thinking we all hoped Microsoft was moving away from finally. I?m sure much more technical details will emerge in the next few days, but right now the blocking takes place at very deep levels of the OSSource: urce: Digitalwerks via Gizmodo

[coresx]

So far unfortunate but why would you want to replace h.264 and MPEG-4 codecs. Surely the Microsoft ones would do the business and I don't think this means you can't install and use other codecs through WMP so even less of an issue. For casual users probably a good thing, for power users, annoying.

[hjf288]

Last time I used ffdshow it chewed CPU decoding H264, the Microsoft ones are DXVA are accelerated...!

I used to use CoreAVCs CUDA accelerated but I find Microsofts better (Which is a surprising change)

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Sounds like they're saying for codecs the OS includes the OS version is preferred over third-party ones by WMP. This doesn't really surprise me, the third-party ones are notoriously unreliable. However, if I'm reading that right, a codec for a format not supported by the OS won't be affected.

Further, it doesn't sound like they're basing this on any documentation or discussion with anyone from MS or the WMP team in particular. It may simply be that the registration model has changed in some way.

[Unknown_97784568745]

This doesn't really surprise me, the third-party ones are notoriously unreliable.

I would actually say that about the first-party ones (on Vista), especially the MS MPEG-2 Video Decoder. It tends to bork where third-party codecs work just fine.

[hdood]

So just how does Media Foundation actually work?

What happens when you get it to automatically build a graph (or whatever the MF equivalent is)? How does it pick which transforms to use? Does it have any sort of merit system like DirectShow that third parties can freely manipulate, or is the idea that it always uses Microsoft codecs unless you manually build the graph to include the third-party ones you want, in an attempt to make sure it will always work?

[Subject Delta]

I'd rather not have my build in codecs replaced anyway, they're specifically designed to work seemlessly with the OS, and this, IMO is a good move. As long as I can still use my other 3rd party codecs to playback video not supported natively I have no concerns over this system. In fact having native video support out of the box is one thing less to screw about with.

[ThePitt]

your computer now is owned by hollywood. Dont dare to change a thing because they will sue you as we speak

[Subject Delta]

No offence but that is a strange attitude to take seeing as this affects playback codecs only, and has nothing whatsoever to do with DRM.

[Leo Natan]

Anyone who thinks this is a good move (aside from Microsoft employees who are probably obligated by contract to post positive on anything Microsoft :rolleyes:) have no clue in video editing, video encoding and frankly, even in video watching. The simplest example: Subtitles. Another: Aspect ratio correction. More: Audio mixing. Even more: Low-frequency crossover. Had enough? :rolleyes: And these are only from daily stuff used for watching.

If dumb monkey can harm his PC from installing bullsh`t codecs, great, give him an option to stay with the build in. But don't lock me out ffs. This will seriously hold me from upgrading to 7 until it is hacked/circumvented.

BTW, this problem was also available to a much smaller extent in Vista with MP3, and it was due to stupid DRM. Won't be surprised if it isn't for the same reason now. :rolleyes:

[Sean2989]

Well the more time people have to examine this, I'm quite sure there will be a patch issued. I don't think this effects media players with built in codecs in them. I could be wrong though. And for your average end users this is a smart move. The reason why its catching hell here is because we aren't the average end user.

[Subject Delta]

I have had no issues at all in Vista encoding, editing, or playing MP3 files. Despite what a few Microsoft haters will tell you, Vista does not actively force DRM into non-DRMed files.

As for video watching, from my experience it works in 7 precisely the way I expected it to... Which is perfectly well. As for editing and conversion support, I don't see how you can point the finger and say it will make those things any worse with no factual information to go on whatsoever. As for aspect ratio correction, that is not usually done by the codec, but by the program which renders the actual frame onto the screen.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

BTW, this problem was also available to a much smaller extent in Vista with MP3, and it was due to stupid DRM. Won't be surprised if it isn't for the same reason now. :rolleyes:

Well that's just a bunch of FUD. The OS makes no determination about which codecs you install or use for any format.

[Leo Natan]

Try playing an MP3 file with ffdshow as the audio decoder. Bunch of FUD indeed. It's not the OS that makes the determination, but Windows Media Player and consequently, Windows Media Center, not using anything else than the Media Foundation Protected Media Pipeline codec for MP3, WMV and WMA. You can check for yourself by running an MP3 file in WMP and seeing the mfpmp.exe process running in the background. It is nearly impossible to manage to get WMP and WMC play MP3, WMV and WMA through other codecs (hard on Vista 32bit, impossible on Vista 64bit from my experience).

Stop posting "a bunch of FUD," you make your company look even worse. :rolleyes:

Edited March 27, 2009 by Leo Natan

[Subject Delta]

mfpmp.exe enables the playback of DRM protected content, without it you'd be unable to play any DRM protected files in any of Microsoft's media playback programs if it wasn't there. I really don't see why you seem to have some kind of burning desire to play MP3 files with FFDshow anyway, it really doesn't make a shred of difference what you play them back with.

What you base your ignorant assessment that MS are forcing everyone into DRM on I don't pretend to know, but if the DRM engine where to be removed from Windows it would sure as hell pee off a lot of people with DRM protected music.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Actually mfpmp.exe is just an optional out-of-proc surrogate host for codecs implemented as DLLs (similar to "dllhost.exe"), with some special protections to prevent attacks against or reverse engineering of the code being run. It actually has basically nothing to do with DRM, the MP3 codec does not support any form of DRM but it runs in mfpmp.exe to insulate the host application from crashes, security vulnerabilities in the codec, etc.

I'm also confused about your statements that it is "hard on Vista 32-bit, impossible on Vista 64-bit." Are you referring to trying to run a 32-bit codec in a 64-bit process? Or vice versa?

WMP does not provide any UI to allow you to choose the preferred decoder. If you want that, use one of the other players that offers such an option. Otherwise, you'll need to use a tool or installer that can register the codec as the default for WMP.

[Subject Delta]

Thanks for the clarification on that, but I was still right on the point that it is not a process that harms conversion / playback xD

Seems to me the media has had so much to say about Vista that people really are eating into every negativity they can. Shame really because since SP1 was introduced, it is a very capable OS. Still at the end of the day there will be no way to convince the doubters that they are wrong, but I am not going to go back to XP (only forward to 7).

Also, I think he was referring to using FFDshow to decode MP3 files in the 64 bit version of WMP, obviously he doesn't realise that Vista 64 actually uses the x86 version of WMP by default. Point is, if he installed an X64 version of FFD it would probably work

[Leo Natan]

Obviously you are jumping to conclusions. I am using the 64bit version of WMP with ffdshow64. WMC is always 64bit iirc. Please don't assume things about me, it makes you look like an idiot.

Small example why I would want to decode MP3 files (or WMA for that matter): Stereo expansion. I have a surround system, and want to expand the stereo file to more than two channels. Here is my filters list for other examples:

So while you might not see the point, but that is your problem, not mine. My problem here with Vista is, why am I forced to use the MS codec? I have no DRM protected MP3s, WMAs or WMPs. I want to use what I see best, and you two, with your silly "This is just the best for the majority" or (even sillier) "I don't see the point" comments, just seem like blind Microsoft fanboi monkeys. I get why it might get this attitude from Brandon, but from others, well, it's just a mystery to me.

[Subject Delta]

Obviously you are jumping to conclusions. I am using the 64bit version of WMP with ffdshow64. WMC is always 64bit iirc. Please don't assume things about me, it makes you look like an idiot.

Small example why I would want to decode MP3 files (or WMA for that matter): Stereo expansion. I have a surround system, and want to expand the stereo file to more than two channels. Here is my filters list for other examples:

So while you might not see the point, but that is your problem, not mine. My problem here with Vista is, why am I forced to use the MS codec? I have no DRM protected MP3s, WMAs or WMPs. I want to use what I see best, and you two, with your silly "This is just the best for the majority" or (even sillier) "I don't see the point" comments, just seem like blind Microsoft fanboi monkeys. I get why it might get this attitude from Brandon, but from others, well, it's just a mystery to me.

Wonderfully childish response there Leo, but I will rebuff your argument that you can only use stereo expansion in FFDshow with one simple screenshot. I have a 5.1 surround system and can get music coming out of all my speakers without decoding my audio in FFDshow, using nothing more than the default MP3 codec built into Windows. And no I am not a "blind Microsoft fanboi monkey" but thanks for the lame attempt at an insult it gave me a chuckle if nothing else.

[shakey_snake]

So just how does Media Foundation actually work?

What happens when you get it to automatically build a graph (or whatever the MF equivalent is)? How does it pick which transforms to use? Does it have any sort of merit system like DirectShow that third parties can freely manipulate, or is the idea that it always uses Microsoft codecs unless you manually build the graph to include the third-party ones you want, in an attempt to make sure it will always work?

I honestly hope it is the latter.

DirectShow's merit system was/is a disaster.

[Leo Natan]

Wonderfully childish response there Leo, but I will rebuff your argument that you can only use stereo expansion in FFDshow with one simple screenshot. I have a 5.1 surround system and can get music coming out of all my speakers without decoding my audio in FFDshow, using nothing more than the default MP3 codec built into Windows. And no I am not a "blind Microsoft fanboi monkey" but thanks for the lame attempt at an insult it gave me a chuckle if nothing else.

At what point did I say it only possible in ffdshow? I can do that in my X-Fi's control panel as well. However, ffdshow (and similar, like AC3Filter) allow for much more precise control over the stereo expansion (not that you'd know something on the topic :rolleyes:). Also, stereo expansion was only one of the filters I have selected in ffdshow. Where is your "here, you can do this much much worse as well from my control panel with the defaul MP3 decoder" explanation for them?

[Subject Delta]

At what point did I say it only possible in ffdshow? I can do that in my X-Fi's control panel as well. However, ffdshow (and similar, like AC3Filter) allow for much more precise control over the stereo expansion (not that you'd know something on the topic :rolleyes:). Also, stereo expansion was only one of the filters I have selected in ffdshow. Where is your "here, you can do this much much worse as well from my control panel with the defaul MP3 decoder" explanation for them?

Seeing as I have no idea what you have enabled, I don't know or care.

If you really want to carry on down your delusional Anti-Microsoft rant path feel free. Although I haven't tried it because I really don't care I am sure there ways to change Windows over to use the FFD decoder.

[Leo Natan]

Although I haven't tried it because I really don't care I am sure there ways to change Windows over to use the FFD decoder.

This is where "hard on Vista 32bit, impossible on Vista 64bit" comes into play, but enough of this crap anyway. You have your opinion and I have mine.

[guru]

Obviously you are jumping to conclusions. I am using the 64bit version of WMP with ffdshow64. WMC is always 64bit iirc. Please don't assume things about me, it makes you look like an idiot.

Small example why I would want to decode MP3 files (or WMA for that matter): Stereo expansion. I have a surround system, and want to expand the stereo file to more than two channels. Here is my filters list for other examples:

So while you might not see the point, but that is your problem, not mine. My problem here with Vista is, why am I forced to use the MS codec? I have no DRM protected MP3s, WMAs or WMPs. I want to use what I see best, and you two, with your silly "This is just the best for the majority" or (even sillier) "I don't see the point" comments, just seem like blind Microsoft fanboi monkeys. I get why it might get this attitude from Brandon, but from others, well, it's just a mystery to me.

i'm with you on allowing for the choice of codec... but is there a reason that you are using WMP/MCE instead of MPC,KMplayer/ MediaPortal ?

[John Freeman]

Default ms codecs are just awful in terms of picture quality - they add way too much deblocking so everything looks blurry as... blur. No options on filters - subtitles, post processing etc. And on top of it all it seems they somehow manage to cause videos to play out of sync (in terms of milliseconds thou).